Tie specialty ranks to position?

[davedove]

Maybe one solution to the issue of CAP grade would be to tie the different levels of the specialty tracks to higher levels of the organization.  For instance, to get a Master rating the person would have to serve in the specialty at Wing level, or something like that.  Some of the tracks already have a similar requirement.  That way, only those who have served at certain levels would be able to get the higher ratings, which are requirements for the different PD levels, which are in turn requirements for promotion.

Of course, once the individual had served at the higher level and received the rating, he could return to squadron level, but you would at least know he had the experience.

[lordmonar]

Don't have a problem with that at all!

You will have a lot of people compain then that those who live farther from wing will be at a disadvantage...and they would be right....but in today's world with E-mail and cell phones...that is not really that big of an issue.

[capchiro]

If that's the case, why not require a member to work at the national level to earn the master rating, or at least the region level?  I know, make the master rating for national, senior for region and wing and below can only be technicians?  Why does everyone seem to want to change rank and tech ratings from the current status to something different?  If everyone would just do what they are supposed to at the level they are at, CAP would be a lot better.  I am seeing an awful lot of suggestions and advice proposed by members with little rank and therefore little experience with CAP.  The program is good and if most members would just worry about their own training track, PD, and position in the organization, we would all be a lot better off.  JMHO, but a very experienced opinion at that.

[Eclipse]

A good idea in practice, but we no longer have the numbers to support that model.

In most cases Wing's are "lucky" to have anyone doing the job.

Which is the real problem.

[Dragoon]

Maybe one solution to the issue of CAP grade would be to tie the different levels of the specialty tracks to higher levels of the organization.  For instance, to get a Master rating the person would have to serve in the specialty at Wing level, or something like that.  Some of the tracks already have a similar requirement.  That way, only those who have served at certain levels would be able to get the higher ratings, which are requirements for the different PD levels, which are in turn requirements for promotion.

Of course, once the individual had served at the higher level and received the rating, he could return to squadron level, but you would at least know he had the experience.

Yup.  I think it's the least we could do.  It would give us at least a couple of years of work out of a field grade officer above squadron level.  And who knows?  A few might like it and keep working there.

[brasda91]

Maybe one solution to the issue of CAP grade would be to tie the different levels of the specialty tracks to higher levels of the organization.  For instance, to get a Master rating the person would have to serve in the specialty at Wing level, or something like that.  Some of the tracks already have a similar requirement.  That way, only those who have served at certain levels would be able to get the higher ratings, which are requirements for the different PD levels, which are in turn requirements for promotion.

Of course, once the individual had served at the higher level and received the rating, he could return to squadron level, but you would at least know he had the experience.

What is the issue?  I'm not being a smart-a**, I'm just curious as to what the problem is.  I've been out of the loop for a while and I'm trying to catch up.

[Dragoon]

A combination of two problems

1.  CAP Lt Cols whose entire "leadership" experience is assistant AE officer in a cadet squadron.

2.  A lack of good folks volunteering for the tough jobs at Group and Wing.

By linking something folks want (promotions) to something we need (more staff officers to run groups and wings) we can fix both problems, at least a little bit.

[davedove]

A combination of two problems

1.  CAP Lt Cols whose entire "leadership" experience is assistant AE officer in a cadet squadron.

2.  A lack of good folks volunteering for the tough jobs at Group and Wing.

By linking something folks want (promotions) to something we need (more staff officers to run groups and wings) we can fix both problems, at least a little bit.

Right.  It would also follow the principle of having the higher ranking individuals at higher levels of the organization.

[SAR-EMT1]

Hold on a second. I'm only a 1st Lt. and in my early 20's at that. Ive already got the Senior Level in Personnel tech in Admin and CP and will get Senior in CP very shortly. My point is: while I have a very good handle on Squadron Ops I think I would be out of my depth at Wing. - Let alone Id have to put up with OLD FOLKS Officers more mature then me. 

If the higher levels are tied to higher levels of responsibility Id wonder how effective it would be in rating maturity/ age/ real world experience.
Not saying I'm immature or that the next Wing Officer would be either. But I would like to see a form of quality control built into the system.

[Dragoon]

Hold on a second. I'm only a 1st Lt. and in my early 20's at that. Ive already got the Senior Level in Personnel tech in Admin and CP and will get Senior in CP very shortly. My point is: while I have a very good handle on Squadron Ops I think I would be out of my depth at Wing. - Let alone Id have to put up with OLD FOLKS Officers more mature then me. 

If the higher levels are tied to higher levels of responsibility Id wonder how effective it would be in rating maturity/ age/ real world experience.
Not saying I'm immature or that the next Wing Officer would be either. But I would like to see a form of quality control built into the system.

Nah, if you're good, you wouldn't be out of your depth at Wing.  And if you WOULD be out of your depth...then perhaps you're really more of at a technician than a senior level of expertise. (after all, if I can't expect more out of a senior than a technician, why have both ratings?)

Maturity is nice, but truthfully for many staff jobs energy and intelligence are a lot more critical.  Perhaps you aren't ready to be the Wing Personnel Officer (although you probably are), but you most certainly could serve as the Assistant.  Or perhaps a Group Personnel Officer. Either way, once someone gets a handle on squadron ops we desperately NEED them to move up so they can use their knowledge to improve more than just their own squadrons.

[afgeo4]

I propose the opposite... allow service on the group staff only to those who have attained a senior rating in their specialty and allow service on wing and above staff only to those who have a master rating. That will assure the competency of those who serve at higher echelons. That rule should also make sure that a someone who has a master rating in CP does not become the region Director of ES while holding only a tech rating in ES. You do what you're trained for at the level you're trained. That may cause our HQ echelons to be less filled, but by more competent people and eventually will create a culture of competency at respective levels.

Of course that doesn't account for new specialty tracks like mine. According to this I'd be moving back down to squadron, but... then there wouldn't be anyone doing recruiting and retention at group, wing or region level.

[Major Carrales]

A good idea in practice, but we no longer have the numbers to support that model.

In most cases Wing's are "lucky" to have anyone doing the job.

Which is the real problem.

Bingo...in a CAP where the rubber meets the road at Squadron Level...we just don't have the numbers to maintain this.  Plus, do you really want to pull good Officers out of Squadrons in favor of Wings?  Ideally...the one best officer in a spec track in the Wing should fill that role.

[lordmonar]

The idea with this program (if adopted) is two fold.  1.  It insures that those who have a particular rating...actually have those sort of skills and in turn are worth of promotion to higher rank.  2.  It encourages/forces those who desire higher rank to stand up and take group/wing/regional positions.

As the program is now....Having a master rating in 90% of the specialy tracks does not require you to do anything outside of the squadron level.  Not saying this is necessarily bad...but to tie in with the "rank does not mean anything" threads it would mean that your Majors and Lt Cols would have to pull some time in group and wing level positions before being promoted.

I have to disagree with your concept that undermanned but competant wing and group staffs will result in a "culture of cometency".  I think it will more likely result in overworked and burned out staff officers.  I am not saying we need to accept the complete screw ups ...but it is often better to have an untrained volunteer holding a job than to allow that job to go unfilled.  YMMV.

[Dragoon]

I propose the opposite... allow service on the group staff only to those who have attained a senior rating in their specialty and allow service on wing and above staff only to those who have a master rating. That will assure the competency of those who serve at higher echelons. That rule should also make sure that a someone who has a master rating in CP does not become the region Director of ES while holding only a tech rating in ES. You do what you're trained for at the level you're trained. That may cause our HQ echelons to be less filled, but by more competent people and eventually will create a culture of competency at respective levels.

Of course that doesn't account for new specialty tracks like mine. According to this I'd be moving back down to squadron, but... then there wouldn't be anyone doing recruiting and retention at group, wing or region level.

So if you can't get a good candidate with a master rating in Cadet Programs, you just leave the job blank?

Of if you have a complete idiot who got a master rating (it ain't that hard to do) you have to give him the job because he's the only "qualified" person?

It's a great concept, but it isn't going to work in the "volunteer" world of CAP.

Plus, the problem many wings face is that no one wants to work at wing, because all the fun is in the squadrons.  If you don't get the best guys at Wing and Group, everyone suffers.

[afgeo4]

I really don't know how a complete idiot can get a master rating in the new system. I'm not a complete idiot and having difficulty with the senior CP rating.

[Dragoon]

What part is giving you trouble.

And admittedly, CP was a bad choice of an example, as they've actually put some teeth into it.

But "idiot" wasn't the right word.  How about the longer but more accurate "guy with no social skills who will never ever get anyone to work with him and is so disorganized that we can't trust him to handle the details of something as valuable as then entire wing's cadet program and as a final kicker he's so durned busy with his 9 other extracurricular activities (Red Cross, Boy Scouts, Kiwanis, local Star Treck club, etc.) that he's only going to be able to put in about 2 hours a week to this critical CAP job."

Not that we've ever had a senior member like that....


But seriously, our tech tracks will help our members master the technical side of the job, but I doubt it will ever ensure that all graduates are competent higher level administrators.  Personally, I've seen some absolutely great Wing staffers who took the job with no background in the area - but with their drive and intelligence they learned real quickly.  And in the meantime, they were excellent leaders and administrators.

[afgeo4]

I'm having trouble with actually putting a lot of time into it lol, but I know most are having trouble getting the TLC class together.

Actually, I've noticed that the ES track and the R&R tracks are quite demanding as well. I am working on my R&R tech rating and it's going to take quite a while. Aside from the recruiting ribbon, you are required to attend a Recruiting & Retention seminar or workshop which no one is setting up and very few are competent to teach. You are required to counsel, set up events, and set up meetings with outside agencies, schools, and/or clubs for the purpose of recruiting. You have to create a recruiting plan and make sure your plan fits in with the group/wing plan (if there is one) and then create and maintain a list of local places that would be good for recruiting such as schools, colleges, clubs, organizations. That plus you have to have a Tech rating in either CP, ES, or SP and a 6 month internship.  All that just for a Tech rating.

[lordmonar]

I really don't know how a complete idiot can get a master rating in the new system. I'm not a complete idiot and having difficulty with the senior CP rating.

(1) Actively serve for 1 year as a technician-rated Cadet Programs staff officer, performing duties with minimal
supervision. Suggested positions include leadership officer, aerospace education officer, and activities officer.
(2) Complete Level II of the Senior Member Professional Development program.
(3) Serve as a staff officer responsible for planning or conducting a significant portion of a cadet activity beyond
routine weekly squadron meetings.
(4) Complete the Training Leaders of Cadets (TLC) seminar.
(5) Successfully complete the open-book, un-timed Cadet Programs Officer Senior Rating Test with a grade of 80% or
higher, corrected to 100%.

I don't want to sound harsh...but which part are you having problems with?

The hardest part for me in getting my Senior rateing is waiting for the next SLS and TLC course.

For your master rating you only have to serve on the RST, TLC and encampment staff.

[Dragoon]

I'm having trouble with actually putting a lot of time into it lol, but I know most are having trouble getting the TLC class together.

Actually, I've noticed that the ES track and the R&R tracks are quite demanding as well. I am working on my R&R tech rating and it's going to take quite a while. Aside from the recruiting ribbon, you are required to attend a Recruiting & Retention seminar or workshop which no one is setting up and very few are competent to teach. You are required to counsel, set up events, and set up meetings with outside agencies, schools, and/or clubs for the purpose of recruiting. You have to create a recruiting plan and make sure your plan fits in with the group/wing plan (if there is one) and then create and maintain a list of local places that would be good for recruiting such as schools, colleges, clubs, organizations. That plus you have to have a Tech rating in either CP, ES, or SP and a 6 month internship.  All that just for a Tech rating.

Some tracks are harder than others, because the PD guys at national aren't doing a good job of reviewing all the tracks regularly.  When the appropriate National staff section (Cadet Programs or Operations) is interested in the track, they update it and add good stuff.  When the Staff Section doesn't care a whole lot (Personnel, Admin, etc). nothing much changes, and the track remains kind of a joke.

[davedove]

While the function of each track is still necessary, I do see some tracks being combined because of less required work in the track.  Take Administrative Officer for example.  The function is still valid and necessary.  However, with technological changes, many of the functions have reduced workloads.

Maintain a set of regulations:  National does this electronically.
Prepare official correspondence:  Most of this is now done through email.
Maintain the supply of forms:  The most recent version of the forms are now available on line and can be easily printed.

Things like that.

[Dragoon]

I have a friend who just retired from a career as a USAF Admin NCO.  In the last 10 years, the field changed greatly.  They really became the local network managers, since most "admin" was electronic.

[afgeo4]

The idea with this program (if adopted) is two fold.  1.  It insures that those who have a particular rating...actually have those sort of skills and in turn are worth of promotion to higher rank.  2.  It encourages/forces those who desire higher rank to stand up and take group/wing/regional positions.

As the program is now....Having a master rating in 90% of the specialy tracks does not require you to do anything outside of the squadron level.  Not saying this is necessarily bad...but to tie in with the "rank does not mean anything" threads it would mean that your Majors and Lt Cols would have to pull some time in group and wing level positions before being promoted.

I have to disagree with your concept that undermanned but competant wing and group staffs will result in a "culture of cometency".  I think it will more likely result in overworked and burned out staff officers.  I am not saying we need to accept the complete screw ups ...but it is often better to have an untrained volunteer holding a job than to allow that job to go unfilled.  YMMV.

Putting someone incompetent in charge doesn't prevent burning out of others, in fact, it is one of the causes. Requires everyone else to "help out" and "fix".  It also degregates everyone below. Perhaps that person is best suited as an assistant?

[lordmonar]

The idea with this program (if adopted) is two fold.  1.  It insures that those who have a particular rating...actually have those sort of skills and in turn are worth of promotion to higher rank.  2.  It encourages/forces those who desire higher rank to stand up and take group/wing/regional positions.

As the program is now....Having a master rating in 90% of the specialy tracks does not require you to do anything outside of the squadron level.  Not saying this is necessarily bad...but to tie in with the "rank does not mean anything" threads it would mean that your Majors and Lt Cols would have to pull some time in group and wing level positions before being promoted.

I have to disagree with your concept that undermanned but competant wing and group staffs will result in a "culture of cometency".  I think it will more likely result in overworked and burned out staff officers.  I am not saying we need to accept the complete screw ups ...but it is often better to have an untrained volunteer holding a job than to allow that job to go unfilled.  YMMV.

Putting someone incompetent in charge doesn't prevent burning out of others, in fact, it is one of the causes. Requires everyone else to "help out" and "fix".  It also degregates everyone below. Perhaps that person is best suited as an assistant?

There is a significant difference between unqualified (i.e. not trained, not enough experince, the wrong rank) and incompetant.  I am not and never have advocated putting or keeping incompetent people in positions of authority.

The only problem with "assistant" is that implies there is a primary.  If there is noone there to do the job in the first place, who is going to do it?

Fill a job with a warm body, with enough common sense not to set the building on fire...does not eliminate the extra work load of the staff...but it reduces it.

[Dragoon]

Bottom line - we are always going to have to fill with the best available, not the perfect candidate.  And some times the "best available" is not that good, but he's the only one that applied.

The simplest way to up the quality of applicants is to make the job more attractive.  More candidates = more chance of a good one.

Since we can't pay people money to do the hard jobs, we need to find some other way to "pay them".

Tying professional development advancement (and therefore promotions) to serving in those tough jobs makes it more likely that we'd get more applicants, and could choose the best one.

And it kind of makes sense, since in the Real Military we expect to seeing higher ranking guys at the higher levels.  And since "mastering" your PD track sort of implies you know the system from top to bottom.  How can that be true if you've only worked at the bottom?

[cnitas]

Tie specialty tracks to Levels/Rank?

I think this is a great idea!  Dave, why don't you write up a proposal and send it up the chain of command?